Chief Sports Columnist, Sydney Morning Herald

Junior Seau: the NFL linebacker committed suicide in 2012. He was later found to have brain disease linked to head trauma. Photo: Getty Images

When the heads of Australia's four major football codes come together, you might expect a clash of sufficient force to cause concussion. This time, however, they intend to prevent it. In Melbourne, NRL, AFL, ARU and FFA officials are hearing submissions from experts about the impact of head injuries, dissecting data and discussing potential remedies.

Eggheads talking about sore heads. For those who like their footballers to get out there, have a crack, stitch-it-up and worry about the damage later, two days of that might be enough to do your head in.

Alternatively, for those concerned about the toll top-flight and amateur sport takes on its combatants – or who are charged with maintaining junior participation rates – it's a conversation sport desperately needs to have.

The issue of head injuries – and particularly the long-term effect of high-impact collisions – is near the top of sport's agenda. The tragic cases of American footballers suffering early onset dementia, and even resorting to suicide, provide a stark warning about the risks of repeated blows to the head.

Advertisement

For those who – my apologies – need to be whacked over the skull to understand how serious the risks of repeated concussion can be? The plight of former AFL champion Greg Williams who now battles severe pain and memory loss – revealed in an interview with colleague Peter FitzSimons on Channel Seven's Sunday Night – was compelling. A high-profile example that brought the issue closer to home.

Too close, as the concussion conference underlines, to ignore. But, as important as it is to share their knowledge to help reduce the incidence of serious head injuries, the greatest challenge for the various codes is to explain the need for preventative measures.

Sport has a habit of addressing problems only after the damage is done. It was obvious when the advertising regulations were relaxed – as we wrote at the time – the influence of bookmakers on sport would grow. Yet, it is only when Tom Waterhouse gets more airtime during Nine's NRL coverage than Billy Slater, that the alarm bells ring.

With concussion, the football codes are trying to get ahead of the game. The AFL continued its campaign to limit the damage caused by concussion on Wednesday with a rule change. When a player is being assessed for concussion, the substitute on the bench can now be temporarily activated. This buys time for doctors under pressure to make a decision about a distressed player's status.

The NRL has outlawed the shoulder charge. What it has not done, yet, is convince everyone a blanket ban on what had been a spectacular aspect of play was warranted.

Phil Gould wrote in Tuesday's Herald on behalf of all those who cheered when Nathan Merritt put a shoulder into Matthew Wright's torso on Monday night, and were appalled he was penalised: "If that collision is now a penalty in rugby league, it won't be long before doctors are campaigning to ban all tackles."

The counter argument is obvious to anyone who has been fined for driving 65km/h in a 60 zone. As we are fined to reduce the chance of a speeding-related death, the shoulder-charge law has been imposed to stop the chance of a dangerous head-high shot. The alternative is to let everyone drive as fast as they want, and only throw the book at those who cause an accident. Which, with the shoulder charge, is the remedy Gould, and many others, favour.

Thus, in asking players, coaches and fans to accept their wholesale ban, it is incumbent upon the NRL to prove – and, explain! – that the incidents of head-high impact from shoulder charges were sufficiently numerous and serious to warrant a total ban. If required, by producing the most dramatic example of short-and long-term damage inflicted, as we see in road trauma advertisements. Assuming they have the evidence, and are capable of relating it clearly to the public.

This is the fine line sport treads in attempting to find remedies that do not create a greater problem. If, for example, it was proven the repetitious use of the head to strike a soccer ball causes long-term damage, would FIFA ban the header? Would it mandate the use of helmets – thus starting a race between sports goods companies to produce headwear capable of the greatest propulsion?

Sorry. But the mind boggles.

Twitter: @rdhinds

9 comments so far

Hi Richard - this issue has a greater potential to harm the game than drugs. The drugs issue will (hopefully) be over and done with before round 5. A player suffering a severe concussion can have repercussions for the rest of his life. The ARLC has to take this issue out of the hands of the clubs, have independent doctors at all games; institute mandatory "medical suspensions" which increase with the number of concussion incidents a player suffers during a playing year. Rugby league is a hard, tough game played by tough, fit, men but there comes a time when the players have to be protected FROM themselves; protected FOR their families and their future lives after football. There should be no repeats of the David Stagg (!?) incident in the SOO game where he came back on in the second half (after a being knocked out for some minutes) but has no memory of the game. Who was being protected here - certainly not the player!!

Commenter

Saint Mike IV

Location

Kiama Downs

Date and time

March 20, 2013, 10:16PM

Helmets are worse for concussion than not. A helmet will not stop the brain from being slammed against the inside of the skull, and in fact encourages more reckless collisions as the wearer believes he is protected.

Commenter

Dean

Date and time

March 21, 2013, 9:02AM

Concussion has the potential to be the issue that terminates organised contact sport forever in our society due to legal challenges. When parents and ex-players start suing schools and clubs, perhaps in class actions that bankrupt sporting organisations and Education Departments, then we'll look back and say "I told you we should have done something about preventing head injuries in sport".

I coach a contact sport (adults) - just last week a player suffered a serious head knock and couldn't remember the entire first half of the day or the game. He came off and sat down. I planned to sit him out for the best part of two weeks. During the week his doctor cleared him to play after a routine checkup. Thanks Doc! He played again the following week, using his doctor to over-rule me.

Underestimate this issue at your peril.

Commenter

FredClark

Location

Alexandria

Date and time

March 21, 2013, 12:13PM

We have sports people shooting needles and taking drugs before the game and then after the game most of the players and nearly all their Australian fans drink alcoholic beverages like there is no tomorrow. Now we are supposed to be concerned about the occasional head contact in sport. I think there is a screw loose there somewhere.

Commenter

Andy

Date and time

March 21, 2013, 1:53PM

@Richard,

The "let everyone drive as fast as they want, and only throw the book at those who cause an accident" alternative that you mention is a poor analogy because one of the main findings of recent brain research in this area is that long-term damage is caused not only by concussive impacts but also by repeated sub-concussive impacts. Therefore the problem with this approach is defining an "accident" when concussion isn't required to inflict long-term damage.

Based on the US experience, if the Australian football codes don't proactively implement preventative measure to reduce the likelihood of such long-term damage, player lawsuits for breaching the duty of care are likely to escalate in the future.

Commenter

Honey Badger

Location

Sydney

Date and time

March 21, 2013, 2:19PM

The issue I have is that we are constantly being told that this is the player's career and I understand the negative impacts of concussion and the need to mitigate its impact where possible. There is always going to be risk in any job. If I develop RSI or a sore back in my office job and I am following proper OH&S procedures does that open up my employer to legal action in later years? If it does, that seems wrong. I know what I am getting into by doing my job and believe there is a level of personal responsibility especially when there is significant financial compensation to those people who have a career as professional athlete.

Commenter

Jimmy

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

March 21, 2013, 2:41PM

You don't need to be struck in the head by a misdirected shoulder charge to damage your brain. Anything that causes your head to whip back will make your brain bounce around in there.

Commenter

insomniac66

Date and time

March 21, 2013, 2:45PM

Richard Hinds you have been concussed for years, how about sharing your success of living with it with the NRL,AFL and the other pretend football codes.

Commenter

Diego Garcia

Location

Not here

Date and time

March 21, 2013, 4:35PM

Dear me Richard, please don't go listening to Phil Gould. He's a throwback to an earlier, sillier time when players did untold damage to each other, got up, finished the game and went off to self-medicate with a few dozen beers. The world's changed and sports of all types have to adapt. If not, then in ten years from now we'll be back here accusing today's administrators of being negligent in their duty of care and asking why we did nothing.